May 11, 2014

What is atheism?

I continue to be amazed at just how poorly understood is atheism by those hell-bent on criticizing it. After all, if you can’t even figure out what the term means by those who use it to define their lack of belief with it, then how can these folk justify claims that non belief inherently possesses immorality while blathering about its association with all kinds of pejorative descriptions and character assassinations for those who do not believe in some meddlesome supernatural deity or deities.

So let’s be clear and define the term for those unable or unwilling to actually listen to atheists: atheism means non belief in gods or a god. The REASONS for holding no belief in some meddlesome supernatural deity or deities are many. I sincerely hope this video will help those who demonstrate such difficulty of comprehension grasping such a simple term finally understand what atheism means and how one arrives at this conclusion.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

1) The narrator claims that theists will not reject a belief in God regardless of the amount of evidence they are given to the contrary. This is patently false. I can give you a long list of defeaters that would make me reject Christian Theism.

2) Biblical faith, properly understood, is not a blind acceptance of an explanation to fill the gaps we have in evidence. It is the exact opposite. There is not a single instance in the Bible that I am aware of where anyone demonstrated this definition of “faith.” Faith is “active trust” based on evidence. You may disagree on the value of the evidence but that doesn’t mean there is no evidence. It’s just evidence you don’t like.

While it’s common for your colleagues to continue to insist differently, your making up a definition for a word and then attributing it to your opponents does not make it true … and it is not an intellectually honest way to argue (as usual).

3) Finally, I don’t know if it’s willful or otherwise, but I am continually amazed by the same old nonsense about how “atheism is not an acceptance of the 3rd hypothesis [that deities do not exist],” it’s just a “lack of belief in the first two hypotheses.”

BS.

Respond to the question: “God exists. True or false?”

Your response is a belief … no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand or admit.

1) Cool. Give us a sample. It’s a long list so maybe just give us your top 5

2) “Faith is “active trust” based on evidence.” No it’s not. A quick consultation with a reputable dictionary will clear up that misconception right away. The oxford definition: “Reliance or Trust, belief in religious doctrine.” The farlex free online dictionary (an app on my smart phone): “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” If you had REAL evidence Bob, you wouldn’t need faith. Bear in mind, that other theists (who far outnumber atheists) also dispute your “evidence”. Muslims, Jews, Hindus…and also insist that your “evidence” is counterfeit and their “evidence” is the real deal. THIS is not an intellectually honest way to argue (as usual)

3) Finally, and I don’t know if its willful or otherwise, but I am continually amazed at the same old nonsense about how it’s just impossible to not believe in something.

BS

Respond to the question: “Vishnu exists. True or false?”

Your response is a belief … no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand or admit.

1) The non-existence of God. The lack of Objective Moral Truth. A Materialist explanation for the information content in DNA. A Materiailist explanation for the existence of consciousness. The Resurrection of Christ.

2) Like I (already, and ad nauseum) said, just because you attribute the definition others give to their understanding of “faith,” doesn’t mean it’s the biblical definition. Your point (as usaul) is, well, (as usaul) pointless.

Almost no theologian would accept your definition of “faith.” If that is how you choose to define faith, then Christianity is not based on faith. It is based on reason and evidence. Consult any book on Christian apologetics.

I don’t give a shit what “theologians” would and wouldn’t accept as the definition of faith. Theologians don’t write, contribute to or edit dictionaries. Lexicographers do. Find any reputable dictionary you like. You find me a dictionary that equates faith with evidence and I’ll eat my hat.

Wow, yes indeed av8torbob, that sure was easy! Let’s see how long it can take me to pick apart your answers….

1) a)The non-existence of god, the lack (non-existence) of Objective Moral Truth. – Not possible to prove a negative – i.e. unfalsifiable. That’s actually your best argument. The proof of the non-existence of god would make you not believe in god. Brilliant.
b) A materialist explanation for…even if there was a “materialist explanation” for anything, that does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of god. The 2 topics are not related in any way shape or form. You’d just move the goal posts and say “god created the materialist explanation”.
c) The resurrection of Christ? That would make you reject Christian Theism? Hmmm, interesting. Ok, if you say so.

2) Yes bob, I give The Oxford dictionary (and any other reputable dictionary) definition of words more consideration that your definition. So does the rest of the educated world. You’ll let me know the minute a lexicographer from Oxford comes knocking on your door asking you to contribute to their dictionary will you? Thanks. I’d appreciate it.

3) Vishnu exists – false? So you believe there is no Vishnu? That’s a belief system then right?

Here’s my honest answer to your idiotic question bob. “God exists – true or false?” I don’t know. I don’t have all the information to determine whether or not that statement is true or false. I don’t believe god exists, but there’s no way I could know for certain that god does not exist.

Sure Ashley, you can continue to rail against the definition of “faith” you want me to hold, apparently because that’s easy to rail against and lots of other people hold it, the problem is THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M DEFENDING. It’s also not the biblical definition or the one that any thinking theist holds to … But why quibble about little facts like that when you can just keep beating the same nail with the only hammer you seem to have.

Ashley … Thanks for (finally) answering my question. If you really claim not to know, you’re not an atheist. You’re an agnostic. Cool. The point is that the video claims otherwise. But, either way, you hold a belief about the issue.

That’s the whole point. Everybody has a belief. Atheists don’t get a pass by saying they don’t have beliefs … Even when they’re wrong beliefs.

Theists like you never cease to amaze me. It really is true. You just NEVER know what they’re gonna say next. I’ve had many a discussion and many an argument with a theist, but you’re the first one I’ve ever met who claims that your authority on the definition of words supersedes that of the Oxford English Dictionary. The whole reason dictionaries exist is to provide universal, agreed-upon definitions of words that are peer-reviewed by experts in their respective fields (lexicographers). I’m not aware of the existence of the dictionary of av8torbob – is there one? Has it been scrutinized and peer-reviewed for accuracy? You see av8torbob, in fact, reality is not your friend. You can’t just make up definitions of words out of thin air and say that’s the REAL definition of a word and dictionary definitions are incorrect or “don’t count”. Why? Allow me to demonstrate.
Ashley’s definition of a theist: A person who likes to play with shiny metal objects and finger paints with their own s*&t. I don’t care what definition that you have for a theist and I don’t care what any dictionary definition of a theist is because “THATS NOT WHAT I’M DEFENDING”. I’m right, you’re wrong.
P.S. “thinking theist” is an oxy moron.

See bob, here’s the problem with you insisting on using your own definitions of words instead of a reputable dictionary. It gets you into all kinds of trouble. First, we’ll examine your question, which was “God exists. True or false?”. You are asking me whether or not god exists. My answer is “I don’t know”. You are correct, that makes me an agnostic. However, if you’d asked me “Do you believe that God exists?” My answer would be “No, I don’t believe that god exists”. See the difference? 2 different questions, 2 different answers. Question 1 is a knowledge question – does god exist? I don’t know. Question 2 is a belief question – do I believe that god exists? No I don’t believe that god exists. Belief in god and knowledge of god’s existence are NOT the same question.
Since we’re being so honest with each other and answering questions, it’s my turn to ask one. When I asked whether or not Vishnu exists, you said “false”. Can you explain how you know for certain that Vishnu doesn’t exist?

Well, Ashley, those “many discussions” you CLAIM to have had must have been with Christian Theists who are either just as clueless as you — and I would agree that there are plenty of them — or else who misunderstand what a biblical view of faith actually is. You can verify this by reading the Bible for yourself (scary and intimidating, I know) and trying to find A SINGLE EXAMPLE of blind faith demonstrated therein OR by reading the explanations of some of the greatest thinkers in human history (who also happen to be Christians) like Augustine or Aquinas.

Get back to me when you’ve educated yourself. Otherwise, just keep playing with your sharp metal objects and fingerpaints, wherever you choose to do so.

How can I educate myself bob? You’re the one who knows all the definitions of every english in the entire world. I’d have to keep referring to you to make sure I have the correct definitions of words like faith amoung other things. I can’t use a dictionary – that’s no good according to you. You’re right and it’s wrong.
P.S. I’ve already the OT of the bible and have started on the NT.
Find a SINGLE EXAMPLE of blind faith from the bible? Ok.

John 20:29 – Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. **probably the best example of blind faith of the 4 that I’ve picked**
John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Galatians 3:26 – For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus
Mark 16:16 – He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Really bob, this is just too easy. The internet is an extremely powerful tool. I, unlike you, rely on it rather than making shit up out of thin air.

Poor Ashley .. Illiteracy is no laughing matter and biblical illiteracy, though common among even those who claim adherence to the Bible, is no exception. Illiteracy and ignorance are not volitional choices, just the product of poor training. It certainly can’t be overcome by utilizing the Cedric technique of scouring the internet (via that “powerful” tool we call google) for memes and videos while remaining completely oblivious to the topic you’re pontificating about. So, let’s take a look at Ashley’s “evidence” for blind faith:

“John 20:29 – **probably the best example of blind faith of the 4 that I’ve picked**” … Yes Ashley, it may be your best (and it’s a REALLY valiant effort!) but, unfortunately, it isn’t really one at all. There’s something called context in hermeneutics, whereby the reader reads whole passages to try to determine the meaning of ideas/phrases within the passage in question. Here, a cursory overview reveals that Thomas had plenty of prior evidence for Christ’s identity and purpose (he had even vowed to die with him earlier) and had seen all the evidence for Who He was and why He came. In short, Thomas had plenty of evidence but he wanted MORE evidence. Do you see how this evidence thing keeps popping up? Christ was notorious for providing evidence for those he wanted to believe in Him. Which is my point. The evidence is plentiful and remains so. His “blessed” comment was directed toward those of us who still had all the evidence Thomas had but lacked the ability to physically put our fingers in His wounds. Nothing earth-shattering there; certainly nothing that discounts the requirement for evidence to compel active trust (which is the definition of “faith”).

“John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” … Not sure what point you’re making here. That’s basically the definition of Christianity. It does absolutely nothing to discount the evidence that would prompt those who would “believe in Him” as a result of the evidence (which is the definition of “faith”).

“Galatians 3:26 – For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” … This is good because one doesn’t even need context to see that it is not applicable to the point you’re trying to make. Like the previous, it comes after piles of evidence that the “children of God” could use to see that the prior Jewish Law they were being goaded into accepting was not applicable to the New Covenant Christ had instituted. All the evidence still applies and still compels active trust (which is the definition of “faith”).

“Mark 16:16 – He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” … See all the other examples above. You have to believe something in order to place active trust in it based on the evidence before you. That’s why all of us believe whatever it is that we believe.

So if I may be so bold as to ask a question, can you please explain why approximately 75-80% of the earth’s population doesn’t recognize your “evidence” and become Christian? Can you explain why there are approximately 4200 different active religions in the world right now, many (actually most) of which not only outright reject your “evidence” but insist that your “evidence” is counterfeit and theirs is the real deal? For example, the approximately 1.5 billion muslims on the planet who insist that the final revelation from god was dictated through the arch angel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed and don’t consider Jesus to be their ultimate lord and savior. Please explain how you’re right and they’re wrong.
How exactly do you know for certain that Vishnu doesn’t exist? How exactly do you know that your ”evidence” for your god is real and all the other ”evidence” for all the other gods are fake? I’d be very interested to hear you explain how you’ve come to know all this information.

It certainly can’t be overcome by utilizing the Cedric technique of scouring the internet (via that “powerful” tool we call google) for memes and videos while remaining completely oblivious to the topic you’re pontificating about”
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! This coming from a guy who says “lets see what the AMS says about global warming”….and then posts a link to another website and then also doesn’t bother to check and see that the real AMS site says the exact opposite of what he claims it says. This coming from a guy who finds a “list” of 100 reasons why global warming is a hoax – not one of which has a single solitary thing to do with global warming – complete tu quoque list. This stuff is PURE GOLD.

The same way you do, Ashley. I weigh the evidence. I determine my beliefs based on a reasonable interpretation of that evidence. Of those 4200 religions (love to know what orifice you pulled that number out of), there are probably 5 that make any kind of reasonable sense of the way the world actually is and offer an explanation for where we came from, the nature and value of human life, and where it’s all headed. I’ve read the explanations offered by those and found Christianity to be the most compelling. Just like you, I’ve decided what is most reasonable based on the evidence I have before me. And while I don’t have the time or interest to do your homework for you, I do know that Naturalism/Materialism fails to even explain the most important of those questions even in principle.

If you’d like some book recommendations, I’d be happy to post them here. Just let me know. 🙂

“The same way you do, Ashley” The same way I do what bob? What are you talking about? I asked you how you know that your “evidence” for your god/religion is real and all the other “evidence” for all the other gods/religions are fake. I don’t believe in any of the revelations of any religion. Do I know for certain that they’re all fake? So back to the question – Where did those 1.5 billion Muslims go so horribly wrong? How is it that they can’t accept all this wonderful “evidence” that you have? What’s going on with all those Hindus? How are they too blind to see that you’ve got all this “real evidence” and continue to worship the wrong gods? Very strange don’t you think? Not only are they like me in that they reject your god and your religion, but they adhere to a different religion and worship different gods. Strange wouldn’t you say, since you’ve got all this irrefutable evidence that Christianity is the real deal?

“Just like you, I’ve decided what is most reasonable based on the evidence I have before me” I have never once stated that I claim to know a damn thing about “where we came from, the nature and value of human life, and where it’s all headed” I wouldn’t even know where to begin to make statements on those topics, especially the last 2. This is the problem that you run into when you make shit up out of thin air. You start resorting to strawman tactics. Go back and scour through this entire blog – through every single comment I’ve ever written. If you find a single comment where I claim to know the nature of the universe, the purpose of it and where we’re headed, I’ll eat my hat.

“I do know that Naturalism/Materialism fails to even explain the most important of those questions even in principle”
Even if it could be conclusively demonstrated that materialism can’t explain anything, it does not lend 1 single solitary iota of weight to your assertion that “goddit”. Because I don’t have an explanation to a particular question doesn’t mean that your explanation is the default correct answer.

“blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.” is the definition of blind faith. Not seeing something yourself yet believing in it anyways. There could not be a more perfect example of god espousing the virtues of blind faith from the bible. You don’t need evidence, you just need to believe.
I wouldn’t talk too much about illiteracy if I were you bob.

I didn’t say my explanation is correct by default. I said I find it to be the most reasonable of all the alternatives. You don’t.

So what?

The fact that Hindus claim that there are (literally) millions of gods is exactly what makes Hinduism ridiculous. It’s philosophically self-refuting.

The fact that Buddhism is godless monism is one thing that makes it ridiculous. It is irrational.

The fact that Islam was the illegitimate creation of a single man who demanded blind obedience is what makes it ridiculous. There is not a shred of historical evidence to support the claims of Muhammed.

The fact the Mormonism is the fraudulent hoax perpetrated by a child molester makes it ridiculous. It also lacks any sort of historically verifiable evidence.

I don’t feel like listing them all for you. Do your own homework … or just remain blissfully ignorant. Your choice. I don’t care.

The point of the original post to which I responded was that: 1) people like me believe things in spite of, or without reference to, evidence and 2) that atheists aren’t driven by belief. Both 1) and 2) are false. That’s what I’m saying. I didn’t say it was “irrefutable” (so quit making crap up, Ashley!) and I didn’t say my explanation was correct by default. I said my “faith” is not the blind ignorance you say it is just because you say it is. Christian faith is active trust based on evidence that I believe is reliable and compelling. You don’t see it that way. I don’t care. Just stop making up straw men to knock down and have enough intellectual courage to acknowledge what I say about my own view of faith and evidence. You don’t have to accept it but don’t tell me what I believe when I say the opposite — otherwise you’re nothing but an intellectual coward.

Ashley, your comment at 3:50 is proof that you didn’t read my response … which is further proof that you are, in fact, an intellectual coward. Why else would you ask for a response and then not read it?

Your response at 4:05 is proof that you are a complete fucking idiot. You ask me to find an example of blind faith in the bible. “..and trying to find A SINGLE EXAMPLE of blind faith demonstrated therein”
I give it to you (John 20:29) “..blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed”, which is the DEFINITION of blind faith – saying that people who have not seen, yet believe anyway are blessed. You then turn around and say I’ve interpreted it incorrectly and that I’m illiterate and then start waxing on about what Thomas saw and had evidence for. That passage is talking, in general, about people who believe without seeing. It’s written, in as plain english as could possibly be, that blind faith is to be considered a virtue. That whether or not there’s evidence, if you believe, you’ll be blessed.
But I guess that doesn’t matter does it bob? No matter what it says in the bible, you can spin it to mean anything you want it to mean and you’ll always be right because you have all this “evidence”.

“The fact that Hindus claim that there are (literally) millions of gods is exactly what makes Hinduism ridiculous. It’s philosophically self-refuting.” – Of course! How did I not see that? Hinduism is polytheistic and Christianity is monotheistic, therefore Hinduism is fake.
“The fact that Islam was the illegitimate creation of a single man who demanded blind obedience is what makes it ridiculous.” – Of course! What makes islam ridiculous is that is was the “illegitimate” creation of a single man. If only it had been created by more than one man, then it might have been considered “legitimate”
“The fact that Buddhism is godless monism is one thing that makes it ridiculous. It is irrational” – Of course! If only Buddhism had a god attached to it, then it would be “rational”
“The fact the Mormonism is the fraudulent hoax perpetrated by a child molester makes it ridiculous” – Of course, if only Mormonism had been perpetrated by a more upstanding citizens then we’d know for sure it was true.
Amazing! 4 sentences and you can dispense with every other religion and show how they’re false and then, by default, the one religion you happen to believe in has all this “legitimate evidence” for it. Who knew it was that simple?!
“Christian faith is active trust based on evidence that I believe is reliable and compelling. You don’t see it that way. I don’t care.” I know you don’t care bob. The only you care about, is being right at all costs and asserting your “evidence” is real which allows you to know that Christianity is the one true religion and all others are false. There’s no doubt in my mind that you actually believe that you have “evidence” that Christianity is the one true religion. You won’t get an argument from me on that. I can only imagine what other incoherent rambling non-sense goes on in that goop of protoplasm between your ears that probably shouldn’t be called a brain.

Ha Ha Ha Ha … Really Ashley? Do you honestly think I’m going to waste my time with a thoughtless, arrogant hack like you giving an in-depth explanation for why I reject every religious system you can think of? Do you really think I owe you more than a one-line response that cannot begin to cover the extent of what I mean, or that I should spend inordinate amounts of time doing so when you have already proven you don’t even read what I write?

The answers to those questions are (in order of appearance): No. No. No.

Yes please bob – tell me more about what an “intellectual coward” I am and how intellectually honest you are that you know for certain that Christianity is the one true religion and you’ve got all the “evidence” for that and you know all the other religions are fake and you aren’t required to give me an “in-depth” explanation as to why every other religion on the face of the earth is fake and yours is the real McCoy. Tell me more about how “arrogant” I am and then demonstrate your humility by showing that since you believe in Christianity you can answer questions such as where we came from, what the purpose of our lives are and where we are headed and how you’ve basically got the universe all figured out. Tell me more about how humble you are and how you know that everyone else who doesn’t believe as you do is wrong and you’re right.
You’re a fucking genius bob. A right proper genius.

I was hoping that you’d be able to appreciate the irony of you calling me arrogant when you’re the one claiming that you know that Christianity is the one true religion and you’ve got all this “evidence” for it and because you do, you’ve got the universe and the mystery of life all figured out. But then again, I was hoping for a bit too much, because you’re too fucking stupid to know what irony is.

I won’t quibble over the narrator’s definition of “atheism” — if that’s how he chooses to define himself, that’s fine. However I agree completely with av8torbob on the definition of biblical faith — I don’t know of any serious Christian theologian or apologist who would define faith as “belief in something for which there is no evidence” (KIerkegaard might be the exception, or possibly some liberal theologians in the Schleiermacher tradition).
I think that the narrator’s most embarrassing faux pas was his treatment of the Genesis flood — the flood happened before the pyramids of Egypt, and the Sumerians, Greeks and Chinese all had accounts of it. This is hardly “the evidence of absence.”
What I often find exasperating about atheists who come from science backgrounds is that they will try to treat the question of the existence / non-existence of God as a scientific hypothesis. They will then make a show of weighing carefully the “evidence” and then conclude either that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, or that the hypothesis is falsifiable.
Let us be clear about this: if the empirical method is the ONLY way of acquiring knowledge you will be both an atheist and a naturalist materialist. But let us also be clear about this: if the careful use of the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge you cannot prove the theory of evolution — it is pseudo-science, for the simple reason that it is not observable and not fasifiable. I can prove the resurrection of Jesus from the dead more easily than you can prove that humans descended from apes.

if the empirical method is the ONLY way of acquiring knowledge you will be both an atheist and a naturalist materialist. But….

But? Do I hear a “but’?

…. let us also be clear about this: if the careful use of the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge you cannot prove the theory of evolution

That’s a Tu Quoque.
Your magic, invisible friend claims must stand or fall on their own merits. You cannot scrabble around and try and find fault with something else.

And for bonus points.
It’s called the theory of Evolution for a reason. Scientific theories don’t just happen by magic. They are not created just to make you personally angry. There is no spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy to lie to you about the whole of biology.

“But let us also be clear about this: if the careful use of the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge you cannot prove the theory of evolution — it is pseudo-science, for the simple reason that it is not observable and not fasifiable. I can prove the resurrection of Jesus from the dead more easily than you can prove that humans descended from apes.”
Let us be clear about this. You are quite possibly the most idiotic, ignorant human being that ever lived.
Look up the phrase “scientific theory”. Then look up The Theory of Evolution and how it’s passed all the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. If you understand english, you’ll now understand why I’m blushing with embarrassment for you.

Madame,
Who is “quite possibly the most idiotic, ignorant human being that ever lived,” yourself or myself, is the point under discussion.
No one has actually observed a lower form of life evolve into a higher form of life. Evolution violates the clearly defined laws of heredity, which make it highly improbable that it could have occurred even once, let alone repeatedly. The hypothesis cannot be falsified by experiment. This is not science; it is philosophical dogma.

I’m not a lady, but that’s ok, you didn’t know.
“No one has actually observed a lower form of life evolve into a higher form of life.” You didn’t read up on the scientific theory of evolution did you? Fossils Bob, fossils. Evolution takes millions and billions of years. You haven’t seen a crocodile evolve into a duck in your lifetime, therefore evolution is not true. Thank you once again for confirming that you are the most idiotic, ignorant human being that ever lived.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery! This is an atheist meme, Bob, and one that doesn’t serve your purpose!

The King James version of faith is usually Hebrews 1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

There are also other considerations about what this definition means in the exercise of this faith. Here we get into hermeneutics about the object and subject of faith, the consequences and rewards of faith, the proofs and fruit of faith, and so on. So when an atheist refers to faith of the religious kind, he or she is referring to the degree of confidence placed in claims that utilizes faith – and not independent evidence – as their necessary foundation.

For example, there is no evidence from reality that dead cells can reanimate. Along comes all kinds of religions that try to demonstrate the miraculous power of their specific deity by claiming some kind of resurrection that defies ‘death’. Because belief in a resurrection of dead cells back into living cells is not adduced from reality – ever – but is empowered solely by confidence that the claim is true because it is taken on faith that it is true in some specific case of the miraculous, we see an exercise of a faith-based belief in action, a willingness by the believer to suspend the requirement for compelling evidence adduced from reality and believed in the hope that the claim is true from evidence that supposedly once existed but is now unavailable for independent testing. This is why the atheist meme is that ‘reality is not your friend’ when it comes to supporting faith-based claims – because reality doesn’t support the claims – and why, if there were compelling evidence from reality, no faith would be required to justify it because it wouldn’t be miraculous!

You see the theistic quandary.

The religious often fail to appreciate how the justification differs for some of their central belief tenets that rely on this kind of faith-based justification and why such faith is absolutely essential for its maintenance; instead, they try very hard to convince others that their faith-based belief is actually an evidence-adduced belief in order to try to independently justify confidence placed in it. This tends to be caustic if not toxic to the very faith-based belief that is required – a belief in the miraculous. But because reality doesn’t provide the kind of independent evidence they need, the religious who think they hold a faith-based belief because of evidence adduced from reality turn to tricks and diversions and obfuscations and word games… anything, in fact, to avoid admitting that their faith-based belief requires faith. Such silly theists. If they did admit that, then they couldn’t claim their imposed belief was equivalent to knowledge. And without that claim justified, then they could not teach the young that their beliefs were anything more than their beliefs.

And the incoherence of the quandary deepens.

That’s why reality is the atheists best ally and the worst of adversaries for theists… because reality doesn’t care about their beliefs and, more importantly, refuses to be anything other than what it is – indifferent to any and all theistic claims about it.

Well now, isn’t that convenient?! You get to define my “faith” for me on “your ” terms, and simultaneously disallow my use of “your” “meme” and … voila! … You are always right! Very clever. That way you can still claim not to have beliefs (I’m just wondering if you believe that your claim to a lack of belief is a true belief or not).

Also completely intellectually dishonest and cowardly when it comes to having an actual debate but what’s a little redefinition of an opponent’s terms when you have a point to make. Maybe find another video from you point of view too. That is also a nice way of pretending that your point of view works against a view that I don’t actually hold … And you don’t have to type all those words and stuff.

Congrats on the navel gazing sophistry. You must feel very accomplished.

Because you define yourself as a Christian, I’m simply pointing out how your source material defines faith. And it comes with very real coherent problems for you when you try to present your beliefs as based on something other than this faith.

You also have a weird selective comprehension problem: all of us have beliefs about all kinds of stuff. What’s important is to find out which ones are based on reality’s arbitration of their quality (reasonable) and which ones aren’t (unreasonable). Faith-based beliefs are not reasonable in the sense they cannot be independently verified. The source of the confidence people like you place in them comes from you assuming certain things are actually reflective of reality when they cannot be shown to be so. Hence, atheists – those who do not share your confidence in your faith-based beliefs you use to describe the reality we share. That’s why your beliefs in this matter are faith-based and not evidence-adduced beliefs. You assume all beliefs by definition are versions of a faith-based kind. You are incorrect.

And right on cue, the mental midget with the video archive and a list of pithy one-line responses that allow him to think he’s smart while simultaneously avoiding EVER actually answering a question … Swoops right in to assume that everyone who disagrees with him is a 24-hour day, 6000 year old earth guy who plugs his ears and says “the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

So sad for poor Ceddy boy that he can’t think beyond his own sweaty, chubby little face … that there are people who don’t fit the mold he likes to mock. His response is to remain in his pretend world where everyone is a young earth nut job who avoids facing reality in the same way that Ceddy boy himself does — with his fingers stuck in his (rather large) ears, his eyes closed, and yelling, “nah nah nah.”

In answer to the irrelevant question that person asked me, I’d say about 14 Billion years, but life didn’t show up until about 3.86 Billion years ago, suddenly and miraculously in the hostile environment that existed just after the Late Heavy Bombardment.

And once again, Tildeb the Avoider, attempts to impose his view, that he wishes I held to, onto me so as to avoid responding to what I actually said was my view. The blind, insistent denial you folks keep demonstrating really is astounding.

My whole point is that I do not hold to any “faith-based beliefs.” I have evidence-based convictions that I act upon … which is the proper definition of faith in this context. You can keep your little mantra going if you want, though — guess that’s a comfortable way for mindless automatons to keep thinking they’ve got the conversation under control — Just let me know if you’d like to have a respectful conversation (I realize that leaves Ceddy boy out) about what I actually think instead of what you wish/assume I think.

“In answer to the irrelevant question that person asked me, I’d say about 14 Billion years…” Well, I’d say your wrong. The age of the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old. You’re thinking about the age of the universe. Jesus H bob! For Christ’s sake man, this information is readily available on the internet!!!!! It literally took me 10 seconds to look it up! Are you really THAT far gone??!?! I can’t understand for the life of my why you wouldn’t take the 10 seconds to go look it up before you responded and yet again, made a fool of yourself. You’re already on the computer!
“Well now, isn’t that convenient?! You get to define my “faith” for me on “your ” terms, and simultaneously disallow my use of “your” “meme” and … voila! … You are always right!” No bob, that’s not it. This goes back to the discussion we had about dictionaries. “We’re” not “choosing” anything for you. These are universal definitions of words that have been peer-reviewed and agreed upon by lexicographers. We (tildeb, cedric and myself) had no hand in writing those dictionaries I can assure you.

Yes that’s true. Some dictionaries are better worded than others. That’s why I usually stick to reputable ones and try at least 3 different sources. Oxford is usually a pretty reputable source and I have a paperback edition that I regularly consult. In any event, I’ve yet to see a definition of faith that essentially says that faith is based on evidence. So at the very least, I could never be like av8torbob and make shit up out of thin air and then insist that my understanding is the correct and only definition worth considering. Where the hell did you guys find this guy anyways? I’ve met some serious space cadets in my life but I must say this guy takes the cake! I’ve never met someone who’s so wrapped up in his own little world that he can’t distinguish fantasy from reality. Simple little things – like the age of the earth for instance. How can a person with a computer or smartphone with access to the internet screw that up?!?!?!?! How can you say “Let’s see what the AMS has to say about global warming!” and then provide a link to another website and not notice (or bother to check) that the AMS takes the exact opposite view he claims it takes. It’s absolutely mind boggling.

My mistake. I was in a hurry and made reference to the age of the Universe (which is the usual red herring I’m asked to chase) when I said about 14 Billion years. The age of planet Earth is somewhere around 4.5 Billion years. No argument there. And still wholly unrelated to the young universe nonsense you try to assume for anyone like me.

Irrelevant (as usual).

Love that you can google videos and post them instead of making a case for yourself though Ced. Very impressive.

Christian apologists, from Justin Martyr to C.S. Lewis, have presented rational arguments for 2,000 years to support the truth claims of Christianity. They did not base their arguments on an appeal to blind leap of faith. I am trying hard not to misrepresent your position; don’t misrepresent mine.

Muslim apologists from Ahmed Deedat to Yusuf Estes, have presented rational arguments for 1400 years to support the truth claims of Islam. They did not base their arguments on an appeal to blind leap of faith. They are trying hard not to misrepresent your position; don’t misrepresent theirs.

Scientology apologists from Hubbard to Tom Cruise, have presented rational arguments for 60 years to support the truth claims of Islam. They did not base their arguments on an appeal to blind leap of faith. They are trying hard not to misrepresent your position; don’t misrepresent theirs.

Let’s try to calm down folks and have a respectful dialogue. An personal insult is not a rational argument — especially coming from a Christian! — “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing . . .” (I Pet. 3:9). Cedric’s proper name is just that, “Cedric.”

What difference does it matter if the personal insult comes from a Christian? Are you implying that it’s less becoming for a Christian to make insults because of a higher moral standard than us lowly atheists? Where do you get off throwing around insults like that? I’m sorry to say sir, the Christian faith does not automatically endow you with some superior sense of morality and good judgment. Get over yourself.

Bob Wheeler … I suppose it’s a weakness of mine that I don’t show respect toward those who don’t deserve any respect. It’s something I need to work on, I guess. But your “especially coming from a Christian” spiritualizing the issue holds no water with me. Calling a disrespectful, mindless hack “Ceddy Boy” instead of Cedric isn’t even in the same league as the garbage he regularly spouts on this page. Peals before swine and all that …

Ashley, av8torbob,
I’ve had a running dialog with Cedric for quite some time now. I remember one time when I replied to a comment he made on this blog by saying, “Well Cedric, we meet again in another dark den!” — which drew a sharp response from Tildeb — “My blog is not a dark den!” And Cedric and I have been talking ever since. A lot of times I find him exasperating, especially with his label switching routine — sometimes it’s best simply to ignore him — but he is still a fellow human being.
As human beings part of the moral standard to which we are held accountable is the one contained in the verse I quoted above. If we believe in God, then we need to concern ourselves with what God wants. And if you don’t believe in God . . . well, Ashley, you fill in the blank.

I know you find him exasperating with his label switching routine – that’s because you’re too stupid to see what he’s doing. He takes your words and makes a substitution – your god for a god that you don’t happen to believe in. If the argument that you present is a valid one, an can be used in defence of your god, then it can be used to defend any god. Only you don’t see to get that. Somehow, your argument is valid only for the god that you happen to believe in. This is called the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.
“And if you don’t believe in God . . . well, Ashley, you fill in the blank.” If I don’t believe in god, I will concern myself with what’s to be done in order to benefit the greater good of humanity, instead of concerning myself with pleasing an invisible, inaudible deity that’s never been demonstrated to exist.

av8torbob – I thought it was “peals” before the swine? Yes please bob, tell me more about your “intellectual courage”. Elaborate on humble you are since you’ve got the necessary “evidence” that has enabled you to have mystery of the universe all figured out. Fucking moron.

Question: Why do atheists always insist on starting arguments, making snide comments, or generally getting angry about a mythical figure they don’t believe in? I certainly don’t go trolling around on atheist blogs trying to start arguments against the non-existence of God.

Avi8torbob tells us that “faith is “active trust” based on evidence.” He is intransigent on this definition.

Why?

Well,firstly we have to ask if his definition is, in fact, true? Is active trust what we apply to varying degrees for everything we encounter? Yes, we are exposed to all kinds of ideas and materials to which we apply varying degrees of ‘active trust.’ By defining this varying degrees of trust to be faith, Avi8tor Bob renders all levels of confidence to be faith.

Is this what religious belief propose, that all of us hold varying degrees of confidence – from the negligible to the overwhelming – towards central faith tenets?

No. This claim is obviously false. Central tenets of religious belief are not to be considered with varying degrees of trust but are to be held as true in trust! They are not to be held in the least likely confidence or some middling amount; they are to be taken, as we say, on faith, meaning we are to assume they are true even if we have no compelling evidence to support that claim.

Secondly, we have to try to figure out why he is so entrenched in defining faith to by synonymous to varying degrees of confidence.

I very much like Peter Boghossian’s answer to this question with his description of faith:

Fact 1: “In religious contexts, the term faith is used when one assigns a higher confidence value than is warranted by the evidence.”
Fact 2: “Some people live their lives (make decisions, inform action, etc.) based upon their faith-based beliefs.”

This exactly what we see happening here. Avi8torbob must obfuscate his religious faith as he practices it to be similar to any other consideration done by anyone that applies any level of confidence to anything! See? We all exercise faith just like Avi8torbob! But whenever faith-based belief, used to justify certain claims about reality, is justifiably criticized for its epistemic failure, out comes the rationalization. This is why Avi8torbob is intransigent on his definition… because he’s got no compelling evidence from reality to make the knowledge claim he wants to justify!

tildeb … Thank you for offering a valid critique of my view instead of the usual garbage I’ve come to expect from others here. I take it seriously and admit you make valid points. But there are a couple of places where I think you misunderstand or misrepresent what you call “religious belief,” as if that is somehow in a separate category from regular old “belief.”

My position is that belief is belief is belief. We all hold beliefs. I believe religious ideas that you reject. That’s fine. But the fact that you reject them does not invalidate them. You hold beliefs that I reject but that doesn’t mean your beliefs are invalid. It means we disagree.

I’m not sure why you seem to think I find my religious belief “overwhelming.” It is by no means “overwhelming.” There are aspects of my beliefs that I question and doubt all the time. Any thinking human being who claims they don’t have religious doubts is a liar. But that doesn’t mean my beliefs are improperly held. Some of these ideas I believe in the same way you believe what you do about the makeup of the core of the Earth or the existence of a quark. You’ve never seen them but you accept them because you believe the evidence for them is more compelling than some other alternative. You take some of these beliefs on the expertise and authority of those you respect or whose credentials you hold in high regard.

The bottom line is that I don’t hold my beliefs in a vacuum. I think that there are historical, archaeological, scientific, philosophical, and ethical reasons/evidence that suggest the theistic hypothesis is true. I don’t need to hold that with unquestioning certainty. I only need a 51% assurance that my view is true and the alternative is not true. I have made an inference to the best explanation from the evidence I have in front of me. You disagree. So be it. But we are both operating on an active trust in the evidence we see. That’s all I’m saying. The fact that I offer an explanation for some of the aspects that are troubling with my view is not “rationalization,” it is the way anyone explains contrary evidence to the view they have inferred from ALL the evidence that pertains.

I agree we all hold beliefs about all kinds of stuff. What I am critiquing is, first, the sphere of influence these beliefs properly belong to and, second, why the method we use to justify these beliefs defines this scope.

In a nutshell, when comparing and contrasting the method used to justify religious beliefs about how reality/cosmos/universe/the world operates and by what mechanisms links cause with effect with another method, namely science, I think we can successfully demonstrate the essential difference between these methods by their products. Religious belief is house divided, as you well know. There are thousands and thousands of religious beliefs that each make claims very often incompatible with each other. This is its product. But it’s also important to remember that religious belief is only one offshoot of all the various kinds of faith-based belief (there are many like alternative medicine, superstitions, various denialisms, and so on) whereas belief justified by a scientific model that seems to work for everyone everywhere all the time is the root method for claims made for evidence-adduced belief.

We share this second method almost all of the time… a method we use that allows reality/etc. to adjudicate our claims made about it. (Want to find your keys? I can claim a belief that they are in my pocket, but reality will arbitrate where they really are… perhaps on the table.)

Some of us make exceptions to using this scientific method for certain kinds claims about how reality operates, and think it is really important to understand and admit when one is switching away from evidence-adduced beliefs to justify a claim and substituting faith-based belief to justify it. And the reason why this so important comes back to my first point about the scope for its sphere of influence.

I think each of us has every right to believe whatever we want. In this sense, all beliefs are personal. But if I wish to extend my beliefs beyond myself and export the personal effect I grant to them to others, then my justification must be greater than faith-based. It must be justified by compelling evidence that has nothing to do with me but is as available to others for testing and verification as it is to me. By definition, faith-based beliefs are not justified this way, by an objective compilation of data freely available from reality to all, by an explanatory model that accounts for all the data and seems to work for everyone everywhere all the time. This kind of public justification – because I want this belief to be extended to and over others – has to be more disciplined by compelling evidence independent of me and my private beliefs. It requires a justification that is also independently demonstrable so that others can reasonably justify the belief as well.

This component of the public/private sphere of influence (referred to by the term ‘domains’) is very much determined by the particular method that justifies the belief. If I want to have my belief taken seriously in the public domain, then my justification for it must be of the public kind, namely, the kind of justification that is not dependent on my beliefs. This rules out faith-based beliefs as a legitimate contender in public domain matters… although perfectly reasonable in the private.

So when we get hot and bothered by certain faith-based beliefs, the culprit is usually an infringement on the public domain by a private domain matter. And this is very often the root of passionate disagreement between non believers and believers… wherepublic policy, public governance, public education, public defense, public law, public medicine, publicaccess to services, public rights, and so forth, are being infringed upon by people trying their best to exert private domain beliefs as public domain issues using faith-based beliefs as their justification.

This is the cause célèbre of New Atheism, to hammer back into the private domain faith-based beliefs of all kinds. Perhaps surprisingly, religious people should also want exactly this if – and it’s a big if – they understand that freedom of religion depends on this vital separation between the public and the private.

I, too, would like to thank Tildeb for giving us a thoughtful and courteous reply. Tildeb hasn’t certainly given us something to mull over and digest.
It will perhaps come as no surprise, however, if I dissent on a couple of points. The first is Peter Beghosian’s definition of religious faith. I think he is mischaracterizing his opponent’s position, and then when they try to explain what they really believe, he accuses them of obfuscating. This is a straw man argument, plain and simple. Most Christian theologians and apologists do not use the term faith “when one assigns a higher confidence value than is warranted by the evidence.” It appears to be an attempt on his part to draw a sharp contrast between science and religion so that he can dismiss religion as utterly groundless.
But is it true that science is “evidence based” and religion is not?
Let’s look at science, first of all. When it comes to the hard natural sciences, such as chemistry or physics, Tildeb is undoubtedly right. The careful use of the scientific method yields results “that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time,” as Tildeb likes to say. But what about historical geology and historical biology? There problem here is two-fold. First, it is not possible to go back in time and observe the phenomenon firsthand, to see what actually happened. Secondy, it is usually not possible to test the hypothesis under controlled conditions in a laboratory. in other words, the historical geologists doesn’t really use the scientific method to obtain his results. All he can do is formulate a hypothesis that seems to explain the facts, but can go no further. And how certain are the results? What caused the Ice Age? What caused the Quartenary Extinction Event? No one really knows. This is hardly “a scientific model that seems to work for everyone everywhere all the time.”
And then what about the social “sciences,” such as psychology? The problem here is that the object is intangible — not subject to direct observation at all. is it really possible to demonstrate scientifically, the existence of the “Id”? Not surprisingly there are divergent schools of psychology, not unlike religious denominations. Is this still science? Or are we talking about philosophy? — or even religion?
But what about religion? Is it true that is simple belief in something for which there is no evidence.? Admittedly the approach here is different than what one would take with the hard natural sciences. In that sense religion is not subject to observation and experiment. But it is something analogous to a scientific “theory” — a set of propositions that explains a range of phenomena. Except that here the range of phenomena includes more than just the bare physical facts of nature. Christianity seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the beginning of life, the uniqueness of the human personality, and our moral intuitions. And it is subject to experimental verification in one sense — millions of people have followed its teachings and found happiness and fulfillment as a result. In other words, it certainly accords with my sense of reality.
Tildeb goes on to explain that “So when we get hot and bothered by certain faith-based beliefs, the culprit is usually an infringement on the public domain by a private domain matter, ” and notes that the New Atheism “to hammer back into the private domain faith-based beliefs of all kinds.” Tildeb suggests that religion should play no role in formulating public policy, that policy should be based on “compelling evidence.” But it is doubtful that in a multiparty democracy that any side has “compelling evidence” to support its viewpoint. Science has been used to justify everything from Marxist Socialism (“scientific socialism”) to laissez-faire capitalism. Economists (another branch of science?) failed to predict the Great Recession of 2008. So what is the “compelling evidence” offered by science?
The problem is trying to define the “good.” Is it equal opportunity or equal outcome? Is it individual freedom or material well-being? Those are philosophical questions that cannot be answered by science. And to the extent that religion seeks to draw our attention to the higher things of life, should its voice be ignored? And if we remove religion from the public domain, what is left? Economics? I cannot believe that we would be better off in the hands of big business.
Are we to understand that what Martin Luther King, Jr., did was wholly illegitimate? Here was an ordained Baptist minister, who headed an organization called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who set out to impose his faith based beliefs on the rest of society. The civil rights demonstrators even had the temerity to sing the old spiritual “We shall overcome.” And what about other religiously motivated reformers such as William Wilberforce, Albert Schweitzer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Mohandas K. Gandhi? Should they have all kept a respectful silence in the face of injustice and inhumanity?

If for nothing else but the sake of being courteous, I’ll put this as mildly as I can. I would ask you to please stop posting or at least making statements on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. “in other words, the historical geologists doesn’t really use the scientific method to obtain his results. All he can do is formulate a hypothesis that seems to explain the facts, but can go no further.” *facepalm* NONSENSE.
Have you ever heard of Plate Tectonics Bob? It’s a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motion of Earth’s lithosphere. It’s theory that’s been accepted by the geoscientific community since the late 50’s/early 60’s.
You are arguing from ignorance Bob and you look like a fool when you do. 30 seconds of internet research Bob – that’s all it takes. It gets you started with the basics and you go from there.
“Christianity seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the beginning of life, the uniqueness of the human personality, and our moral intuitions” So has EVERY OTHER RELIGION that’s come and gone since the dawn of man. All have completely failed to explain a single solitary thing. A fact that seems to completely escape you, even when it’s pointed out every other day.
“Is it individual freedom or material well-being? Those are philosophical questions that cannot be answered by science.” Nor can they be answered by religion. According to what you’ve written in previous posts, neither individual freedom, nor material well-being are nearly as important as pleasing your god and doing according to his will. According to you, that is of absolute paramount importance.
“And if we remove religion from the public domain, what is left? Economics?” Try secular humanism. Figuring out how to live with one another without appealing to supernatural deities. You keep making these unfounded assumptions and assertions that we NEED religion in order to live with one another. I’ve pointed it out, at least 4 or 5 times in the course of multiple conversations, that the United States of America has done EXACTLY that – removed religion from the public domain. It is ILLEGAL for religion to play any role whatsoever in the governance (i.e. public policy) of that country. The church and state or to be kept completely separate at all times. Anyone who wants to practice religion in the US has to do so as a volunteer. I keep pointing this out Bob and you keep on ignoring it. This is just plain dishonest and disingenuous discussion. You need to come up with something new.

…the historical geologists doesn’t really use the scientific method to obtain his results.

Never drive your car again. Never switch on any device that uses coal or oil ever again. (Insert host of other trivially easy responses here) Geology is science, Bob.
Really, really, really.
With a cherry on top.

Christianity seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the….

That’s nice.

Islam seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the
Mormonism seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the
Hinduism seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the
Scientiology seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the
Ralienism seeks to explain not only the rational order and complexity of nature, but also the

I’m still waiting for Bob to do his best to represent atheism properly.
On multiple occasions, I have (very, VERY politely) pleaded with him to define atheism as opposed to just inserting stuff however he feels like it.
So far, no dice.

Just a few days ago on his blog, I wrote this:

“You know what I’d like to see?
Just once, I’d like you to honestly define what an atheist is.
Rather than indulge in strawmannery and endless waffle, just go for the bottom line and define what an atheist is.
There are resources available on the internet.
Easy resources available. From atheists themselves. You could just define atheists as the atheist community openly defines themselves.
Not so hard.
Try it.”

So rather than do that, Bob decides to completely ignore what I wrote and posts this…

“Atheist: one who denies the existence of God — ” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).

No, you don’t Bob. You haven’t once ever made a real effort to represent atheism honestly. You have all the atheist community blogs and websites to help you. Tonnes of simple, step-by-step youtube videos. Defining atheism is child’s play. Yet you can’t.
It’s really, really easy.
Try.

Bob tilts again at a reasonable definition of atheism.
This time the results are not a total shambles.
(Yes, he has his token Nietzsche moment and there’s the dog-eared “Oh woe, morals” thingy tacked on after it but…baby steps. Baby steps.)

This morning, the “Unbelievable” radio program (UK) hosted a debate between Tim McGrew and Peter Boghossian about the nature of the self-serving (and inaccurate) definition of faith Boghossian is trying to push (that sounds AMAZINGLY like the one being pushed here). I don’t know when the debate will be available for viewing but apparently it was a healthy and vigorous exchange between the two — both of whom are infinitely more qualified to talk about the subject than anyone on here.

At risk of hearing an opinion you don’t like (or that Ceddy Boy doesn’t have the capacity to understand), I would be happy to provide a link if/when the debate becomes available.

noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

For all Ashley’s blathering insistence of “dictionary definitions” of things, I’m sure the fact that the #1. definition agrees with me is just an inconvenient truth. 🙂

Yeah, the OED is the standard, and its definition of faith in the religious sense is “Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.”

This gives a better sense of the term meaning a conviction of a dependent belief held in trust (and imposed on something in the form of hope) rather than adduced from a compilation of other compelling reasons independent of the believer. The first definition you provide is faith in the colloquial sense.

For all of your blathering, I am sure that you never noticed that the phrase “based on evidence” never came up. As a matter of fact, in definition #2, it mentions specifically that faith is NOT based on evidence or proof. But hey, what’s a minor transgression like that right? I am also sure you didn’t notice that the definition that you decided to cling to refers to a person or a thing and not an omnipotent deity – which is why definition #2 was made to specifically address a god. But no biggie! Why bother letting something like facts get in the way of an argument right?
As usual Bob, you’re right – you were right all along. And we’re all wrong. Nothing will ever change in that regard will it?

I’m the intellectually dishonest coward bob – there ya go. This coming from a guy who posts this: “Faith is “active trust” based on evidence.” and then a few days later, posts 5 dictionary definitions that not only don’t support that assertion but in fact, say the exact opposite.
I’m the guys who’s already made up my mind – this coming from a guy who has “evidence” that Christianity is the one true faith and can answer life’s big questions which include (but probably aren’t limited to) How we got here, what the meaning of life is and where we are headed. And of course, all other faiths and religions are bogus and can easily be dismissed with a sentence or 2.
You have to be, hands down, the most arrogant, brain-washed, delusional, brain-dead fucking idiot I have ever had the displeasure of talking to in my entire life. A person who is wholly and completely incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Thank heaven you’re nothing more than an airline pilot and no one takes you seriously (and hopefully you’re not in a position to influence anyone else). You scare the shit right out of me. You are a mouth-foaming, brain-washed lunatic. You are the epitome of the bottom quartile subject in the Dunning-Kruger study. How you function on a day-to-day basis would be quite a good thesis platform for a psychology student.

Oh, and I forgot, Ashley .. You’re also a “mechanical engineer and amateur musician” so I can see why I should take your scientific and philosophical pronouncements seriously. Ha Ha Ha … you’re a joke.

The usual brilliant response … Here’s the difference between us punk — I have the balls to listen to both sides. You don’t. You’re an intellectually dishonest coward, no matter how foul-mouthed and cowardly and tough you can talk on the internet. 🙂

See bob, you’re so stupid, you easily provide proof that you can’t distinguish fantasy from reality. I have no idea what scientific and philosophical pronouncements I have made, with the exception of the ones that are in that addled “brain” of yours. If you weren’t so stupid, you’d notice that YOU’RE the one making pronouncements, not me. You “have the balls” to listen to both sides, except you know better than the AMS and NASA and every other scientist on the planet when it comes to global warming, You “have the balls” to listen to both sides, except you know better than every Hindu, Muslim, Jew and every other religious person on the planet that Christianity is the one true religion.
You’re a fucking ignorant, know-it-all moron. That’s all you are, that’s all you’ll ever be.

Av8torbob, you do come across as being stupid on the internet.
Ashley has you dead to rights on that.
Also this business of criticizing people (on the internet) for being foul-mouthed (on the internet) while do the same (on the internet) is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If you really want to raise the standard of discussion, then you should lead by example.

It is, however, of great delight to me that (according to your blog) you are a supporter of Intelligent Design. I had no idea that people like you were still around. It’s so 2005. So I have to ask, what do you think is Intelligent Design?

Oh come now “Ceddy boy”! Everyone knows that Judge John Jones III was just an “activist judge” and that intelligent design is a perfectly valid “scientific theory” with an extraordinary amount of explanatory power, it’s just that the scientific community is to much of an “intellectual coward” to acknowledge this breath-taking discovery. Their problem is that they aren’t as intelligent as av8torbob and aren’t able to harness this amazing power to their advantage. If only that big dummy Stephen Hawking would wake up and smell the coffee, he’d maybe be in the same league as av8tobob.

So you know then that intelligent design is nothing more than a propaganda term for creationism and isn’t science at all? Very good then. That was Judge John Jones III’s ruling in that matter. If you’d watch the NOVA documentary “Intelligent Design on Trial” you will see that the trial took a total of 40 days in which the proponents of Intelligent design (creationism) thoroughly failed to convince the Judge that intelligent design is anything more than religious nonsense and is in no way scientific. The best that they (Michael Behe) could do was “it looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed”. The REAL scientists debunked every single nonsense assertion that was made at that trial. But no doubt you know better than that stupid judge right? What am I saying? Of course you do.
What Stephen Hawking’s declaration that “philosophy is dead” has to do with intelligent design has escaped me entirely I am afraid. This is another one of those times when you think you’ve made some kind of point, but in reality have only succeeded in making yourself look like the complete idiot that you are. (I’ll give you a hint as to why I say that – Stephen Hawking is not a “philosophical” genius. Stephen Hawking is theoretical physicist and cosmologist. I know he’s not as smart as a pilot or anything like that, but he’s pretty smart. Your opinion of the capacity of Stephen Hawking’s philosophical abilities holds about as much weight as the next creatard – which is to say, none. No one gives 2 flying fucks what an intelligent-design supporting moron like you thinks about Stephen Hawking’s philosophical prowess.)
P.S. bob, just out of curiosity, how many books have you written, had peer reviewed and published in the subject of cosmology or theoretical physics or even intelligent design? Someone as learned as intelligent as you would have to have at least 20 books pumped out by now right?

First, the folks in Dover were stupid. They overreached and were wrong in trying to push ID to the point they did. They should have lost the case. Actually, I’m glad they did. But that doesn’t mean some pompous judge in Pennsylvania’s definition of “science” is correct. The fact that he (like you) can cut and paste verbiage into an opinion does not make it correct (see: Roe-v-Wade). He had no qualification to “rule” on the definition of science. Still doesn’t. And neither does some punk, “amateur musician” from Canada.

Along the same lines, it doesn’t matter what I think about ID (as you so “eloquently” pointed out). But I suppose that all the PhD scientists who do have a problem with your 19th century opinion of Darwinism are just a bunch of idiots like me too, right? I mean, after all, Ashley, the “amateur musician” from Canada thinks they’re stupid too. So … they must be. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

Second, I never said Hawking’s declaration that science was dead had ANYTHING to do with ID. Check my words. YOU’RE the one who brought Hawking into it by claiming (falsely, as usual) that I thought he was a “big dummy.” Never said any such thing. You made it up. You lied (again).

But, anyway, it doesn’t take much of an education to understand what Hawking said about philosophy being “dead.” Those were his words. I realize it may be difficult (impossible?) for you to understand basic philosophical reasoning but the point isn’t that I’m questioning his science or cosmology. I have no credentials to do such a thing. But I have studied a bit of philosophy (a bit MORE than you, apparently) and I do know that his claiming that philosophy is “dead” is about as atheitarded (look, I can do it too!) as it gets. I just thought it was ironic that you (being a clueless, intellectual coward) brought him into the discussion. 🙂

A “pompous Judge from Pennsylvania” and a “punk amateur musician from Canada” doesn’t have any qualification to “rule on the definition of science”, but an ignorant, looney-bin, brain-dead pilot does. Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up.
P.S., it’s very evident that you didn’t watch the documentary because at no point did Judge John Jones III ever “rule on the definition of science”. He ruled that ID is not a scientific theory, but is instead religious dogma and has no place in a classroom being taught as “science”. ID was presented as a scientific theory that should be taught in science class, or at least be given equal time with evolution. It’s not. It’s religious horseshit. It’s very easy to look up his decision in the case Bob – should take even you only about 30 seconds or so.
So if I can get this straight – you’re a supporter of ID but you’re glad that the “stupid folks in Dover” lost the case? That’s a rather odd position to take. I guess they should have bided their time eh? Maybe they should have gotten you to testify at the trial? I’m sure you could have cleared up all the misunderstandings for them. Please note that the “stupid folks of Dover” had direct support and solicited testimony from Discovery Institute fellows (Michael Behe) so it wasn’t just the “stupid folks of Dover” acting on their own. The Discovery Institute, the flag ship of the ID cause, fell flat on its face when it came time to put its money where its mouth was in defence of its magnificent “scientific theory”. But according to you, that’s a good thing. ID, the most amazing “scientific theory” ever, defended by the most knowledgable and learned of its proponents is laughed out of court room and you’re “glad” that it went down that way. Hunh, interesting perspective. Just when I think to myself “Ok, this HAS to be it – he can’t possibly say anything stupider that this!”, you top yourself in your very next post. Your stupidity knows no bounds. The possibilities are endless.
“But I suppose that all the PhD scientists who do have a problem with your 19th century opinion of Darwinism are just a bunch of idiots like me too, right?” Yes, they are. (Please note that it’s not “my” “19th century” “opinion” of Darwinism. It’s Charles Darwin’s scientific theory that has been repeatedly tested, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community (hence the reason it’s called the Theory of Evolution).
And sir, if you’re going to be a global-warming-denying, ID-supporting, mouth foaming crack-pot, please don’t talk to me about “philosophical reasoning”. I couldn’t care less what you think about Stephen Hawking’s position on the relevance of philosophy. I couldn’t care less if you “studied a bit of philosophy” either. I don’t consult morons like you for philosophical opinions about anything and I certainly don’t consult morons like you for your critique of Stephen Hawking’s work – philosophical in nature or otherwise. Your opinions are worthless as far as I am concerned.

Show me where I’ve been foul-mouthed Ceddy. One place. You’re a liar (again). Maybe you call the phrase “having the balls” foul-mouthed but really, it’s just a colloquialism for having the honesty and courage to do something (antonym: Cedric and Ashley’s approach toward other views). Anyway, go ahead and compare that colloquialism to Ashley’s quite sophisticated (for your average street punk drug dealer) language and get back to me about who’s calling the kettle black.

Note to Bob: just because there are “several hundred” pHd scientists that believe in ID, doesn’t make ID any more plausible or intelligible. Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus. He also wrote books on, and practiced, alchemy. So by your reasoning, alchemy must be a perfectly valid course of study since Newtown was so smart. You see Bob, having a pHd is in no way a safeguard against being an idiot or a crackpot.
“Now move along back to music practice there Ashley.” A most excellent defence of the “scientific theory” of ID Bob. You’ve really outdone yourself this time.
I’m not exactly sure what it is that’s got you so obsessed with fact that I declared myself an amateur musician (I.e. I like to play guitar in my spare time), but then again, I’m sure there a lot of weird, strange things that go on inside that “brain” of yours that would amuse and/or horrify me.

Ah yes … the geniuses weigh in again. And again firmly insert their feet in their own (gigantic) mouths. Funny that you would pick these two specific examples:

Your problem (again) is that I DO read both sides of these issues. You don’t (because you’re intellectual cowards). The result is that I know about the very cases you bring up. And, unlike you, I don’t accept the pronouncements of people just because they happen to agree with me. For instance:

1) Since when is a judge qualified to determine what is, and what is not, science? Those who have any earthly idea about such things know that we should probably talk to philosophers of science about such things. But that’s beneath you, I know. You have already defined things so that your unfounded presuppositions always win out. Very convenient.

2) On page 5 of “The Grand Design,” the philosophical genius (Hawking) declares that “philosophy is dead” … which just happens to be a philosophical statement that he tries to defend (philosophically) for the next 160 pages. No doubt Hawking is a genius in his field, but when it comes to philosophy, he proves himself to be at a level almost as low as an “amateur musician.”

Off or not, you don’t seem to be willing to explain it.
What is Intelligent Design?
Do you even know?

But I suppose that all the PhD scientists who do have a problem with your…

Mystery PhD “scientists”? Hundreds of ’em?
No. That won’t do.
If you knew anything about science, you’d know that Arguments from Authority invoking mystery Phds is fallacious.
In science, only the work counts.

Cedric posts another video to cover up the idiotic nature of his previous query …. classic.

“What is Intelligent Design? Do you even know?”
Yes, I do but I don’t have time to educate you. Read up on it for yourself. It’s really very easy to google some appropriate resources — and you’ve shown what an awesome googler you are. Of course, you’d probably have to READ something instead of just sitting with open mouth drooling on your shirt as you watch (another) video, so I don’t expect that will happen. Alternatively, you can ask Ashley. He’s the one who brought it up, after all.

“Mystery PhD “scientists”? Hundreds of ‘em?”
No, not a mystery. I provided a list. You didn’t even bother to go look at it … standard operating procedure.

“Arguments from Authority invoking mystery Phds is fallacious.”
Correct. It was my response to Ashley’s invocation of the authority of PhDs (and judges) as a non-sequitur to ANYTHING I had said previously (“Everyone knows that Judge John Jones III was just an “activist judge” and that intelligent design is a perfectly valid “scientific theory” … “If only that big dummy Stephen Hawking would wake up and smell the coffee, he’d maybe be in the same league as av8tobob.” ~ quotes from Ashley) that prompted me to respond in kind.

Funny how you two introduce unrelated and/or false claims into the conversation then, when I respond to YOUR comments, you accuse me of making an improper argument. It’s all part of the fact that you are a cowardly, intellectually dishonest, liar. But I’m sure your entire audience (you) finds you to be very clever.

So then Bob, you should have a very easy time explaining why The Theory of Evolution is taught in a science class and why ID is not considered science and as such, is not allowed to be taught as science.
I absolutely love it when you call me (or Cedric) an intellectually dishonest liar while you use the most disingenuine, dishonest tactics on a regular basis – from claiming to post something from one website and actually posting something from another website (and then not acknowledging that the actual website that you claim to be posting from says the opposite of what you claim it says) – to declaring a definition of a word and then posting a dictionary definition and then glossing over the fact that the dictionary definitions are the exact opposite of your original assertion. Using bullshit tactics like that and never offering an explanation or an apology…just dead silence when it’s brought up. How many times have I brought up your “let’s see what the AMS website has to say” bullshit? At least 15 by now – not a word of apology or explanation from you – but I’m the coward. Cedric’s asked you now several times what ID is and you refuse to give an answer, instead telling him to ask me since “I brought it up” or that you “don’t have time to educate him”. But we’re the ones that are the intellectually dishonest liars right? Go f*&k yourself you stupid asshole.

Once again Bob, excellent job of ducking questions and avoiding explaining or offering apologies for your clear use of disingenuine and dishonest tactics. That’s the best approach to use. Obfuscate, avoid, duck, change the subject…how oh so very clever of you. Prick.

So, it’s an apology you wanted from me all along? I’m not sure how I missed that but let me offer more than one in hopes that we can get back to a civil discussion …

I apologize for asserting that the Cosmological, Teleological, Axiological, Philosophical, Historical, Archaeological, Experiential, and Textual arguments that have been posited by some of the greatest thinkers in human history actually count as some kind of evidence for my views.

I apologize for claiming that this so-called “evidence” supports my conviction that Christianity is true and for referring to that conviction as “faith,” contrary to the definition you and others here accept for the word “faith.” I have no right. From now on, if anyone asks, I will confirm for them that my so-called “faith” is blind, wishful thinking that has no basis in reality.

I apologize for claiming to post from one website while slyly diverting your attention and linking to a different website that claims the opposite of my view. I clearly have every motivation to do such a thing while simultaneously denying it … Oh, and not even knowing how it is possible.

I apologize for not responding to comments you insert about a completely different topic from a completely different post from over 3 months ago. I should answer any random question, on any given topic, when you demand it and in as much detail as you require at the drop of a hat.

I apologize for not following you down every rabbit trail you create in the comments section.

I apologize for taking remote control of your keyboard and polluting tildeb’s blog by placing profanity-laced diatribes into your comments without your permission. It’s just a habit of mine. On a related note, I apologize for shaming you into placing little symbol thingies between the f and the k in later profanity-laced diatribes because that makes them nicer … and I apologize for Cedric’s false accusation that I’ve done the same when it is a bald-faced lie.

Where Cedric is concerned, I apologize for not watching every YouTube video he can locate through google. I really should spend my time doing that.

Finally, I apologize for trying to enlighten you about the fact that philosophy precedes science. Always has. Always will. I had no right to interject common sense and logical thinking into this exercise without your permission.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to apologize for and I will offer that apology with all the sincerity it is due.

@John Zande: Yes, with one caveat. Please read apology #5 above (re: rabbit trails). I regretfully followed Ashley down a couple and you see where that got us. I think he might be mad at me, even after I apologized to him.

But since you only asked for one:

P1: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause adequate to explain it.
P2: The universe began to exist.

The first statement is not necessarily true, radioactive decay, for example, happens without a cause, but let’s give it to you for arguments sake. Casual relations are fixed. What then caused the universe? If you’re going to break the cause/effect count simply because you can’t count to infinity and posit god, then please explain why you’re willing to give an exemption to the “fixed rules” of causality to your particular god, but not grant this exact same exemption to the universe itself? Why one and not the other, particularly when there are more satisfying reasons for the latter than the former.

Also, as you failed the first time round, perhaps you could try again and name a single thing (a truth) philosophy has actually ever discovered.

@John Zande … I will not go down the rabbit trail but I cannot allow disingenuous word games to go unanswered

1) Even if you’re right about radioactive decay the case is irrelevant. I didn’t say every event has a cause. What I said was “anything that BEGINS TO EXIST must have a cause adequate to explain it.” It’s a different claim. Read it.

Strike one

2) I made no attempt to identify the cause. I simply stated that there must be one. Never mentioned God in the proof. Stop putting words in my mouth. I realize it is very tempting to attribute arguments that others may make to me, but please be careful that you respond to the answer I actually give and not the one you ASSume you will hear.

Strike two

3) You said: “There are more satisfying answers for the latter (an uncaused universe) than the former (an uncaused God)” … Really? Such as? Never heard them but before you offer some, you better be ready to support your definition of “satisfying.”

1) Your entire thought exercise rests on the validity of the first statement, and that statement is wrong. And it’s not a case of “if I’m right about radioactive decay,” rather I am correct, and this one example (there are others) contradicts your first premise. The rest of your argument therefore is nonsense. Cause and effect are NOT fixed.

2) You didn’t, but you were heading that way so I decided to cut to the chase and ask you the question… which it appears you cannot answer. That doesn’t surprise me. No theist has ever answered that question satisfactorily. You, clearly, are no different.

3) It is the more satisfying answer as it does not require something supernatural… something that doesn’t exist.

“3) It is the more satisfying answer as it does not require something supernatural… something that doesn’t exist.”

There are only two possible types of causes — Personal or Natural. I am open to either. You eliminate one by putting a presupposition in place simply because it eliminates a possible inference a priori — simply because you don’t like it. Bingo! You never get a “satisfactory” answer! Very convenient.

Sorry to let you down John in your attempt at “chatting to me” (?). Let me repeat my earlier apology to Ashley:

I apologize for not responding to comments you insert about a completely different topic from a completely different post from over 3 months ago. I should answer any random question, on any given topic, when you demand it and in as much detail as you require at the drop of a hat.

I apologize for not following you down every rabbit trail you create in the comments section.

OK, I really am done with you, Cedric, but before I go, I have to thank you for giving me quite a good belly laugh when I finally clicked on your name to see from under what rock you crawled. I couldn’t have made up a better spoof than that you provided me with your link to the site of “James Randi [who] has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist.” This is how you want us to identify you?!

Now that’s just funny … and also explains your penchant for escaping serious debate by diversion and obfuscation. Maybe you could have James Randi investigate your “pseudo-scientific” nonsense for the garbage that it is. Oh wait, you don’t have anything to offer but links to YouTube videos. Never mind.

But the kicker was the promo for the exciting announcement that Bill Nye, the fraudulent “science guy,” is coming to your “Amazing” convention. Hey, he’s a mechanical engineer who poses as a pontificator on all things scientific … just like Ashley! What an amazing coincidence. Oh, and he did stand up in Seattle before becoming the “science guy.” So, there’s that.

Magicians. Stand up comedians. Escape artists. Musicians … Quite a sophisticated team you’ve got going on there, Ced. Congrats and good luck. A whole bunch of people are counting on you (?).

Magicians. Stand up comedians. Escape artists. Musicians and NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
All of them.
Every single last one on the planet.
Reality is not your friend.

Congrats and good luck.

With NASA on my side, I probably won’t need much luck. You keep it. You need far, far more than me. But thanks anyway.

The same tumour of stupid that led you to embrace ID and then flinch away from it in public once the writing was on the wall is the same tumour of stupid that makes you think that the Pentagon, NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is somehow lying to you about climate change.
There is no spooky-wooky global conspiracy, Av8tobob.
The hippies never took over the Pentagon. Honest.

Yes, I do but I don’t have time to educate you. Read up on it for yourself.

You’re evading again.
If you like you could always use the definition that was used at the Dover trial. Oh wait! That didn’t work so well.
You’re a supporter of ID that’s kinda shy and coy about defining ID.
Most people don’t do that with scientific topics they claim to support.
On the other hand, your evasion does sound a lot like the YEC nutters out there when I ask ’em how old the Earth is.

How old is the Earth?

“Also, your question, “how old do you think is the age of the Earth” seems a little “off.”
Try this to see what I mean: “Cedric, what do you think is plate tectonics?” Or “Cedric, what do you think is Big Bang Cosmology?”
(giggle giggle) 🙂

So….how old is the Earth? Why are you evading? Do you even know?

“Yes, I do but I don’t have time to educate you. Read up on it for yourself. It’s really very easy to google some appropriate resources — and you’ve shown what an awesome googler you are. Of course, you’d probably have to READ something instead of just sitting with open mouth drooling on your shirt as you watch (another) video, so I don’t expect that will happen. Alternatively, you can ask Ashley. He’s the one who brought it up, after all.”

Yep, works perfectly.
Sane people don’t talk like this about science topics. Never seen a conversation go like this on, say, plate tectonics or Big Bang Cosmology.

No, not a mystery. I provided a list.

Ah, so you did. I missed that. My bad.
But…

Correct. It was my response to…

Then your response was fallacious. Shame on you.

You do know that the list is a lie, right? Vaccine deniers do the same list thing as do climate deniers and HIV deniers and all sorts of other oddballs out there.
In science, only the work counts.
Scientists make fun of such things. Those lists are a ploy to fool a gullible public.

NCSE’s “Project Steve” is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of “scientists who doubt evolution” or “scientists who dissent from Darwinism.”

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.” Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We’d like to think that after Project Steve, we’ll have seen the last of bogus “scientists doubting evolution” lists, but it’s probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, “How many Steves are on your list!?”

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

For bonus points, I can also provide you with analysis of the “Dissent” list to show you just how much hokum it really is. Once people start going through the names, the list shrinks quite rapidly.

@Cedric .. You said:
“Also this business of … being foul-mouthed (on the internet) while you do the same (on the internet) is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. …

Comment by Cedric Katesby — May 26, 2014 @ 12:02 am |”

Speaking of being evasive, I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a false accusation you brought against me. When are you going to admit as much? I will be happy to accept your apology when offered.

Or, do you plan to continue to avoid the issue and remain a liar?

(Credibility sustaining hint: All the comments are still there for anyone to see … If you get my drift) 🙂

Speaking of being evasive, I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a false accusation you brought against me.

Is English your second language or are you being deliberately dense again? We native English speakers have these things called dictionaries. Loads of them freely available on the internet.
Let me help you with that.
Pick the one you like the most…or find one particular one that you like better. No problem at all.

foul-mouthed
adj
1. given to using obscene, abusive, or blasphemous language

foul-mouthed
adjective /ˌfaʊlˈmaʊðd/
› If someone is foul-mouthed, they use offensive language

foul-mouthed
adjective
given to using obscene, abusive, or blasphemous language

Seriously, what is this aversion you have to not fact checking? If you don’t know what a word means and how to apply it then learn.

Are saying that science or the scientific method doesn’t work via opinion poll? You have 2 competing hypothesis and the one that generates the bigger list of supporters is the correct hypothesis – isn’t that how the scientific method works?
What if you have a scientific theory with massive amounts of evidence and data to support it, but you have a big list of people who “don’t buy it”? Surely that must mean that there are some serious flaws with the theory no? Especially – ESPECIALLY – if some (most? maybe all?) of the people on that list have university degrees or PhD’s (degrees that may or may not be in any way related to the field being discussed)? Surely that must discredit the theory – or at least cast some serious doubt as to its validity?
Isn’t it true, that for the reasons I have described above, “there’s no such thing as settled science”? I mean, we’ll never ever know for certain that, say, the earth is round or flat, because there a huge number of people who “don’t buy” that the earth is round. They even have their own websites (flatearthsociety for example) and have a “list” of people who “don’t buy” the “round earth theory”.
I dunno Cedric…..I think av8torbob might be on to something here…….We should probably totally re-examine our thought process.

Actually, Cedric, you’re having trouble reading again, maybe because your google search only turned up verbiage instead of a YouTube video. You’ll need to work on that … If you look, I have not responded to your questions at all. Haven’t watched any of you videos either — not one (though I have started to see you repeating them .. kind of a small archive I guess).

Anyway, I didn’t actually ask what foul-mouthed meant. Though you may find it incredible that a knuckle-dragging moron like me already knew that part, I did.

What I asked for is an example of me being foul-mouthed as you falsely charged. You still haven’t provided one.

What I asked for is an example of me being foul-mouthed as you falsely charged. You still haven’t provided one.

You are foul-mouthed. You don’t get to lecture people on netiquette.
If you are confused about the meaning of foul-mouthed then get thee hence to a dictionary.

“Get back to me when you’ve educated yourself. Otherwise, just keep playing with your sharp metal objects and fingerpaints, wherever you choose to do so.”
(…)
“..you’re nothing but an intellectual coward.”
(…)
“…a thoughtless, arrogant hack like you…”
(…)
“And right on cue, the mental midget…”

etc
etc
etc

This is how you write. You are foul-mouthed.

Even Christians have pointed out that your manners are bad.

“Let’s try to calm down folks and have a respectful dialogue. An personal insult is not a rational argument — especially coming from a Christian! — “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing . . .” (I Pet. 3:9). Cedric’s proper name is just that, “Cedric.”

Not that this registered with you.

Bob Wheeler … I suppose it’s a weakness of mine that I don’t show respect toward those who don’t deserve any respect. It’s something I need to work on, I guess. But your “especially coming from a Christian” spiritualizing the issue holds no water with me. Calling a disrespectful, mindless hack “Ceddy Boy” instead of Cedric isn’t even in the same league as the garbage he regularly spouts on this page. Peals before swine and all that …

Doing a Tu Quoque does not help you.
If you still have trouble understanding what foul-mouthed means, then look it up. I have already provided three different examples.

Look at how you write and regularly refer to people.
Now go back to the dictionary definition.
Now look at how you write.

Priceless word twisting there, Cedric … That you are even trying to attempt to describe what I said as “obscene,” “abusive,” or “blasphemous” is actually funny. Especially when you read Ashley, and your, (and Tildeb’s as I recall) ACTUAL foul-mouths in action. Your own examples prove to anyone who read this that you are an unrepentant liar.

I guess you “highly rational” atheists not only engage a double standard where your language is concerned, but you seem a wee bit sensitive about taking much less than you are happy to dish out.

Go back and look at what you/Ashley wrote.
Now go look at the definition.
Now look at what I wrote.

Maybe you can spot the blatant double standard … and the hypocrisy … Even if you NEVER admit it. Anyone who reads this knows EXACTLY who the foul-mouths are. Shame on you.

Why don’t you just come out and say what you really mean? Ashley uses swear words and Bob doesn’t. That’s what you REALLY want to say isn’t it? Ashley uses the big bad F word and the big bad S word and the big bad BS word. You call people thoughtless, arrogant hacks, intellectually dishonest liars, and mental midgets amoung other things, but at least you don’t use swear words. You’re too good for that. And that’s what gives you license to be the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou douche-bag dickhead that you are. You can say the most immoral hateful garbage it’s possible to say to another human being, but as long as you don’t swear, you’re golden. It’s a typical Christian apologist defence tactic. If you’d said to Cedric that Ashley routinely uses swear words in his discourse, you’d have had him over a barrel. But you didn’t. You used “foul-mouthed”. Being foul-mouthed doesn’t necessarily entail using swear words. I believe you can refer to the dictionary definitions that Cedric posted earlier (or look them up in your own dictionary) and you’ll see that’s the case.
I have to ask you this Bob. Are you a masochist? Do you just like arguing with people for the sake of arguing? I ask these questions because I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why you keep on visiting this blog. I really can’t. According to you, practically every post that Tildeb put up is bullshit – Global Warming is bullshit. Atheism is bullshit. “His” (really a dictionary) definition of faith is bullshit. Atheists are immoral pieces of garbage (I read through an exchange that he an you had back in Jan of 2013). Cedric and I are intellectually dishonest liars. I’m a “foul-mouthed” prick….the list goes on and on. Why on earth would you subject yourself to this? In addition to that, you already know that Christianity is the answer to all of life’s problems. You’ve got all this evidence for it and because you do, it’s allowed you to undertake the humble task of having the mystery of the entire universe all figured out. You know where we came from, you know what life’s purpose is, you know where we’re headed. What the hell are you doing on here arguing with low-life pricks and idiots like Tildeb and Cedric and myself? It can’t possibly be to learn anything new or at least anything important. You’ve already got all the really important stuff figured out! What difference does it make if Tildeb’s post about atheism and faith is bullshit? You’ve got all of life’s big questions answered!
in other words Bob, why don’t you do everyone a favour and just FUCK OFF?

Av8torbob is essentially writing to himself. The only person who ever interacted with him on his own blog on any meaningful level is tildeb.
(You’d think he’d be a bit more grateful and not throw turds everywhere.)

I suspect that the reason that bob’s website is so barren of comments is due to the fact that his posts are so immaculately written, so accurately fact checked and so logically thought out, that there’s no need for any comments. They’re perfect. There’s nothing more to be said. And I could totally see how he would be lonely. Having the universe all figured out, well, it’s lonely at the top. Intellectually dishonest liars like you and me…..we’ll just never understand.
LMFAO! Ha ha ha ha. Ok, I got that out with a straight face.
And I just finished watching that video. I nearly pissed my pants!

Three dictionary definitions, remember? I even invited you to pick one on your own. Can’t do fairer than that.

That you are even trying to attempt to describe…

It’s you versus the English language. I’m sorry that you don’t understand it as well as I do.

…you seem a wee bit sensitive about taking much less than you are happy to dish out.

You are the one doing the whining.

You’re an intellectually dishonest coward, no matter how foul-mouthed and cowardly and tough you can talk on the internet. 🙂

You can be as foul-mouthed as you like as far as I’m concerned. I don’t mind. Only this business of criticizing people (on the internet) for being foul-mouthed (on the internet) while do the same (on the internet) is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If you really want to raise the standard of discussion, then you should lead by example.
If you don’t like it then…tough.
(shrug)

<i….specially when you read Ashley, and your, (and Tildeb’s as I recall) ACTUAL foul-mouths in action.

Tu Quoque.

Maybe you can spot the blatant double standard … and the hypocrisy …

Tu Quoque.
Stop being stupid.
The English language and critical thinking skills are not your friends.
You lose again.

About this site

Questionable Motives is a site dedicated to raising important questions in the never-ending battle between rationality and superstition, offering commentary about topical issues, and addressing which of these motivations is truly being served.